Number of banks on problem list tops 700 - Feb. 23, 2010

More than 700 banks, or nearly one out of every 11, are at risk of going under, according to a government report published Tuesday. Full Story »

Posted by Michael Bugeja
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Business, Media
Member Tags: Bank Failures
Stats Help
# Diggs: 68 (as of 2010-02-23)
# Tweets: 285 (as of 2010-02-23)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Michael Bugeja - Feb 23, 2010 - 1:27 PM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Feb 25, 2010 - 11:53 AM PST
Fabrice Florin
2.6
by Fabrice Florin - Feb. 25, 2010

Superficial journalism about a recent government report on troubled banks facing failures this year. This story is largely based on a single source, with no independent viewpoints and little context to help understand this complex issue. In the accompanying video interview with FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, CNN reporter Poppy Harlow doesn't ask many tough questions, essentially promoting the government's position without any other perspectives.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
2.6
by Kaizar Campwala - Feb. 26, 2010

They have essentially reprinted the highlights of an FDIC report, and slapped on a sensational title that belies the actually sober facts within the article.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kristin Gorski
2.2
by Kristin Gorski - Feb. 25, 2010

Only one stakeholder is interviewed: FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. Only one source is cited: the FDIC. The article doesn't include enough of a variety of sources to make it truly informative. No opposing viewpoints are included in this poorly sourced piece, and with more than 700 banks "at risk of going bust," articles on this crucial topic -- which affects millions, perhaps billions of people, worldwide -- must be done well.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Michael Bugeja
2.4
by Michael Bugeja - Feb. 25, 2010

This isn't quality journalism; it's a "news story" based on a report provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with the reporter garning a few sources to comment on the report, with a bias toward--are you ready?--banks. The story doesn't state what banks went under. Rather, the FDIC is cited as "never" doing that to prevent a run on those banks. If so, then, why does the FDIC post the list? (See my links.) Bad bank journalism.

Get out of the newsroom, head for a failed bank, and document the scene. Go to the people first and then to the government, generating human interest rather than FDIC public relations.

The names of the banks on the list are never made available to the general public by regulators out of fear that depositors at those institutions may prompt a so-called ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.5

Poor
from 4 reviews (72% confidence)
Quality
2.4
Facts
2.8
Fairness
2.2
Sourcing
1.8
Style
2.2
Context
2.8
Depth
2.0
Enterprise
1.8
Relevance
3.5
Popularity
2.7
Recommendation
1.5
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help